Do Selfies Taken by Monkeys Have Copyright?

Copyright law is primarily designed to protect human creations but recently the issue of copyright for creations made by animals and AI has gained attention.

In 2011 a selfie taken by a monkey named Naruto captured worldwide attention. Photographer David Slater happened to capture this photo when monkeys played with his camera in Indonesia leading to Naruto accidentally taking a selfie.

Slater claimed the copyright to this photo but Wikimedia refused arguing that the monkeys work belonged to the public domain. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting animal rights and opposing animal abuse filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto against Slater asserting the monkey’s copyright. This case sparked a review of the applicability of copyright to non-human creations.

In 2021 with the launch of AI models a U.S. company became embroiled in a debate over the copyright of artwork generated by AI. When the AI-generated artwork was used commercially the AIs developer claimed copyright but the court ruled that AI could not be the subject of copyright. This case provided a new turning point in modern discussions about copyright for non-human creations.

Traditionally copyright law has only protected human creations and the rights to works created by non-humans particularly animals are not clearly defined.

U.S. copyright law specifies that a work must be original contain creative elements and have a human author. According to the 1976 Copyright Act a work must be original fixed in a tangible medium and include creative elements.

Furthermore copyright must result from human intellectual labor. Although research shows that animals particularly primates have the capacity to create original and creative works current copyright law does not protect the creations of animals. Animals are deemed incapable of performing intellectual labor or creating original works based on the concept of self-authorship.

The issue of corporate copyright ownership is complicated by the fact that corporations cannot create original works. While the U.S. Supreme Court has granted corporations legal personhood they lack emotions and creativity and therefore cannot replace human authors.

However corporations can own the copyright to works created by employees through employment relationships. The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creation and corporations pursue economic benefits through this. The copyright to a corporations creations is attributed to the corporation through the works of employed staff regardless of the corporation’s own creativity.

Recently copyright disputes over AI-generated music have emerged as a new issue. When a song created by AI achieved commercial success the AI’s developer claimed copyright. The court ruled that AI-generated works do not qualify for copyright and that the subject of copyright must be human. This case once again highlighted the limits and possibilities of copyright for non-human creations.

A new approach to recognizing copyright for works created by animals could involve applying the work made for hire principle. The logic is that since the monkey used the photographer’s tools and executed the photographer’s vision during the creation process the copyright could belong to the photographer. Although the monkey cannot directly hold copyright the legal rights to the resulting creation could be protected through the role of a human assistant.

The issue of copyright for creations made by animals and corporations raises important questions about the fundamental purpose and scope of copyright law. The discussion on whether non-human creations can be included within the scope of copyright protection demands a reconsideration of legal definitions and societal perceptions.

Website: : http://www.wip-news.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=24866